"but you also made alot of people angry at the USA foreign policy!"

Well the taliban and Osama Bin Laden made us angry by killing 3,000 of our civilians. Some people tend to get mad when the US kills a few civilians on accident, but you tend to ignore the fact that the people we are after are purposely killing civilians. We have the right to attack any nation that attacks us. And yes, I think the afghani people are better off now.

In reply to:

---

Well the taliban and Osama Bin Laden made us angry by killing 3,000 of our civilians

---

I think you had better check your statistics on this one.

A reasonable chunk of the 3000 of "our civilians" you refer to are not in fact "Americans" [i.e. US Citizens].

There were many people killed on 9/11 who were from/citizens of Cananda, The UK, Mexico, Australia and many other countries around the world.

These people may have had Green Cards, but they were not American Citizens.

And therefore, while they were civilians, they were not "(y)our civilians."

Not everyone in the world wants to live or work in America, and of those who do, not every one of them wants to become a US citizen.

So your assertion about "3000 of our civilians" is too high.

> Then how come just about everybody hates your people in the middle east? Some people doesnt want to be "freed".

Well, I can't talk about everybody, but Osama hates us because we have troops in Saudia Arabia, who asked us to be there. He hates us because he is a religious zealot who thinks that all non-Muslims should be banned from the entire area, much like they are already banned from the holy cities of Mecca and Medina.

Some people in that region hate us because we support Israel, an argument that may have some merit. I don't really want to get into a debate about that at the moment.

And a good chunk hate us because they see us as a meddling bully, and while there may be some truth to that, we have helped many Muslims as well. Not only have we helped the people of Afghnastan, we have liberated Kuwait and Muslim Kosovo (from a Christian Serbia no less). They choose to ignore the good we do and focus on the mistakes instead. This has nothing to do with reason or logic, just with a desire to find someone to hate, and the U.S. is the easiest target.

> But you DID go over there and overthrew their government and put your own in their place.

Well, not entirely true. We didn't choose the government, but we did help replace one internal faction with another. As for Democracy, they didn't have one before so tell me how we did anything bad in that regard.

> But i´ll bet the afghani people are no better off now.

You blew any chance at being taken seriously with that statement. The idea that the current government, even with all its faults, is not better than the brutal, oppressive, iron-fisted, zealot government of the Taliban is ludicrous.

I think there must be a very unusual slant to the reporting of these crisis by the Swedish media. I find it interesting to read the news reports of different nations, and see the spin in each case. Some countries seem to regularly spin toward their national line (US, Germany) and others regularly against it (UK, France). There's probably some truth somewhere in the middle.

I don't know any English language Swedish news sites, though.

Rob

"A reasonable chunk of the 3000 of "our civilians" you refer to are not in fact "Americans" [i.e. US Citizens]."

Ok, fair enough. I think the final death toll was 3,025. I'm not sure how many were americans, but I would guess about 90%.

In reply to:

---

Ok, fair enough. I think the final death toll was 3,025. I'm not sure how many were americans, but I would guess about 90%.

---

I think 90% is still too high.

Considering that you have to remove the non-civilian personnel involved [mostly at the Pentagon], as they were not civilians [for the most part these were miltary employees i.e. US Citizens].

Now you have got below 3000, then from memory something like 500+ were not "Americans", and who knows how many of the 2500 or so remaing actually were.

So, its more like 83% (2500/3000) at the most were American Civilians.

I don't think the percentage or the exact number is important to the point he was making.

In reply to:

---

I don't think the percentage or the exact number is important to the point he was making.

---

I agree that the exact numbers are irrelevant, even one can be considered one too many.

But that sword cuts both ways.


However, if anyone makes claims that America has a right to be annoyed with someone because X of "our people" got killed, and the X you quote is wrong for all sorts of reasons - is the original claim still valid?

I think you have a right to be corrected if you make outrageous claims which are clearly and provably false.

For instance:

I could say 100% of everything Tony Blair (UK PM/Leader) says is utter rubbish.
But saying it does not make it so.

And if I am proved wrong and only 83% of everything that Tony Blair says is definately rubbish, then my claim that 100%... is clearly wrong.

If I originally said "at least 80% of everything Tony Blair says is rubbish" then whether it it was 81% or 99.99% *would* be irrelevant.


All I am doing is correcting the abuse of statistics.

On the topic of gun control and whatnot...

Go see "Bowling For Columbine". Interesting documentary about guns in the American culture.

As for England's crime rate approaching that of the US, that really has nothing to do with gun control. Getting rid of the gun controls will not do anything to stop a rise in crime. But it *will* make it easier for criminals and "borderline" criminals to get guns, and it *will* increase the number of non-crime related gun deaths.

As one who as lived in a country with gun control (Canada), and one without gun control (the US), I feel much, much, much safer walking down the street in the country *with* gun control. I'm less afraid of a criminal with a gun than I am the average Joe on the street with a gun, who might decide to intercede in a mugging and accidentally shoot me instead of the mugger, or who might get ticked off in a fit of passionate road rage, or who might use his gun in "self-defence", miss his target, and hit me.

If you're so concerned about self-defense that you think you need to carry a handgun, I'd recommend studying Jeet Kune Do, Krav Magda, or a similar martial art. The things that can be done with a stick, a blade, a half-dozen quarters in the end of a handkerchief, or just your own two hands (and legs) is astonishing, not to mention far more dependable and versatile than a handgun.

not to mention far more dependable and versatile than a handgun.

But, how will I get my daughter's basketball off the roof, or change the channel on the TV, or put out the lights at bedtime if not with a gun?

(If you don't get it, I apologize.)

Osama hates us because we have troops in Saudia Arabia, who asked us to be there

Ah yes, that'll be the will of the democratically-elected parliament of the Republic of Saudi Arabia, will it?

we have liberated Kuwait

Again, I'm sure the many fine populist political parties who contested Kuwait's last election are very grateful for that.

Sarcasm aside, of course a US-bolstered democratic state in Afghanistan will be an improvement on the Taleban. But firstly, the Afghans remember that the Taleban themselves were not a force in Afghanistan until they were bolstered, funded, and armed by the US as a scorched-earth policy against Communist annexation of Afghanistan -- and secondly, the history of US adventurism and bait-and-switch regime meddling in the Middle-East will not be filling Afghans with confidence in the US' commitment to the long-term infrastructure support needed now to weld a proper country from an uneasy coalition of overarmed ex-warlords. In particular, the Afghans must be fearing -- as the world fears -- that Afghanistan will be left to the wolves again once it all kicks off in Iraq.

Peter

I would have to apologize to all Americans, I did choose my arguments very clumsily and bluntly.

The thing is, you have the right to be angry and sad at the WTC terrorism. But you have to be reminded of, that its not a country you are fighting against. Its a terror organisation. Without boundraries or national claims. In attacking Afghanistan you took the war up one level. Because the "civilian casulties" you claim are equal to Afghanistans casualties. Has nothing to do with your war. And believing in that YOUR country has the right to sacrifice Afghani civilians makes you just as much a terrorist as they are. Sacrificing anybody (especially civilians) are not justified by any goals! And as someone else pointed out, the civilians are not just affected by the bullets. But also by all the war parties that encircles them. Even if the USA troops doesnt affect the civilians in a direct way (stealing food/supplies/luitering/raping) I wouldnt be surprised if the taliban or the afghani counterpart are doing it. By your presence there, you started the war and have an indirect blame for what has happened. I believe that is one strong argument for NOT starting any war for no whatsoever reason. How would you feel if your home were to be plundered and your wife raped together with all the neigbourhoods wifes. And thats just one aspect of war and "civilian casualties". Its very easy for a strong nation like the USA to making war here and there. But you also have to think about the consequences. And what you indirectly inflicted was not upon the al quaida.... (they were hiding in the mountains) it was upon the innocent people of Afghanistan.

Maybe I´m just as touched by my own governments propaganda as many of the Americans are. But atleast we stand for NO killing!

"But at least we stand for NO killing!"

I think this is the stand that makes your viewpoint different from mine. Don't get me wrong, I think that anytime a person dies at the hand of another, it is the result of evil. The problem is, evil is hard at work in the world to make some killing necessary.

There are many people in the world who, if they could, would kill me in a split second simply because I'm an American. That's the sad reality, the one with which the US (and other countries) must deal. And of course, we (the US) make mistakes, as you have pointed out, which is tragic and evil as well. But to stand for NO killing is a nice benign viewpoint until someone wants to come into YOUR house and rape YOUR wife and take YOUR life. If right now your country can take that stance, be grateful for the current climate, because if the terrorists have their way, eventually you will be in their sites.

As far as specific go, I personally believe our action in Afghanistan was warranted and could have been avoided if its government had worked with us. I also think that innocents died, but they were never intended to be our target. The Afghanistan government could have protected their people, but they refused. I believe that we made the right choice, and it is tragic and evil that people had to die. I might be wrong, of course, because I don't know the whole story. What I do know is that we don't live in a word where "NO killing" is an option.

The Afghanistan government could have protected their people, but they refused.

Protected them from what? Protected them from being listed under "collateral damage"?

How would they have done that, except by kowtowing to what the US wants? This leads to an erosion of the religious fervour that they were trying to promote when they took over the country in the first place.

When will you guys just get it? The Islamic fundamentalists just don't like secular westerners. Shipping in McDonalds and Disney to calm them down is the last thing they want.

And that's just the government. The average man in the street, strange as it may seem, doesn't hold a viewpoint that different. For him, though, it's probably not about religion, more the erosion of a lifestyle. The French don't particularly like US culture (or the absence of it), and they're just as western-secular as the rest of us.

Moreover, these people are poor. They're not worried about such basic human rights as self-determination. They're worried about such basic human rights as food.

America has no policital interests in the middle east and should act accordingly. America has energy interests and passes off nuclear weapons as a reason to control the area. Pakistan, India, China, Korea and several other Nations have chemical and nuclear weapons.
Why not attack them?

More civilians, locals or not, were killed in the war raids on Afghanistan than were killed in the S11 events.

There is NO reason for guns in civilian hands.
Q. What about self protection?
A. What started this thread?

Sweeping statements I know, but it's late and I'm irritated by people thinking that there is a tolerable level of violence.

There is NO reason for guns in civilian hands.

There absolutely is. The second amendment to the US Constitution exists for a very specific reason. Read the US Declaration of Independence. Given, we don't have an insane monarch trying to extract fealty from halfway around the world now, but just because the reason doesn't exist in the wild now doesn't mean that no reason exists at all. Things change, often for the worse. Examine the war-mongering civil-liberties-impairing idiot we have in office now. And then look at his approval ratings. Then tell me that it couldn't get worse.

Is there a tolerable level of violence? No. But sometimes intolerable things must be done.

Edit: Note that I am in favor of gun control (at least in theory) and think that the NRA adminstration is comprised largely of pandering gun nuts. So I'm not coming from that viewpoint. It's just that your statement is a little beyond the pale.

I see it the same way - from colleagues in various offices round the world, the overwhelming viewpoint seems to be that the US should just leave well alone. In the Middle East this is especially so - as there the US not only acts in its own interests, typically by screwing the locals out of fuel/resources etc, but also trying to overpower the local culture with (as Roger put it) it's own lack of one.

Imposition of the US Intellectual Property Framework is also not helping developing countries, and just further reinforces the world view that the US is the big bully of the neighbourhood.

World transmission of the CNN channel also does the US no favours at all! The coverage of issues outside the US is staggeringly low (admittedly, we in the UK have a similar issue here - a cow falling off a cliff in Cornwall is likely to make the news although there is enough independence in the various news channels that we get a reasonable world focus) so the rest of the world may get the impression that the US pays no attention to anything outside its borders unless American corporate interests are impacted, and then any force is acceptable to resolve the problem, no matter what the collateral damage.

I for one was horrified by the Twin Towers attack, but think it outrageous that the US attacked Afghanistan and killed more innocents than the original terrorists. A definite case of abuse of a powerful position by the US.

Hmmm - I sound tetchy today. Must be all the rain - hasn't stopped for 38 hours here. Need a holiday. Unfortunately I'm heading north a few hundred miles for the weekend, so it'll be even wetter. Oh joy.

a cow falling off a cliff in Cornwall is likely to make the news

Are you sure it fell? Maybe it was tipped

Possibly

The bizarre thing was my brother got scrambled to rescue it...from halfway down the cliff where it was clinging. Well, not so much clinging as wedged I guess, hooves not being that great for rock climbing. Then again, goats seem to manage...so maybe the hooves aren't the problem so much as the cow's bulk.

Sarcasm aside, of course a US-bolstered democratic state in Afghanistan will be an improvement on the Taleban. But firstly, the Afghans remember that the Taleban themselves were not a force in Afghanistan until they were bolstered, funded, and armed by the US as a scorched-earth policy against Communist annexation of Afghanistan -- and secondly, the history of US adventurism and bait-and-switch regime meddling in the Middle-East will not be filling Afghans with confidence in the US' commitment to the long-term infrastructure support needed now to weld a proper country from an uneasy coalition of overarmed ex-warlords. In particular, the Afghans must be fearing -- as the world fears -- that Afghanistan will be left to the wolves again once it all kicks off in Iraq.

Good sarcasm. I'd tend to think of the approach as "bait-and-forget" in a lot of cases, though.

"Pakistan, India, China, Korea and several other Nations have chemical and nuclear weapons.
Why not attack them?"

Because nations like China (who aren't even our enemy) already have the nukes and attacking them could lead to an all out nuclear war. Iraq and North Korea (who are our enemies) are trying to obtain nukes and we don't want that to happen.




"World transmission of the CNN channel also does the US no favours at all!"

CNN, McDonald's, Disneyland, etc. springing up around the world has nothing to do with the US government. These businesses are owned and run by individuals who open them for one reason - to make money. There is no conspiracy to force american culture down anyone's throat. If everyone hated McDonald's so much then nobody would eat there and it would close down. Likewise, CNN is only broadcast around the world because people like to watch it.


"but think it outrageous that the US attacked Afghanistan and killed more innocents than the original terrorists."

How so? Do you consider the taliban and Al Qaeda innocents? Sure, some civilian bystanders got caught in the line of fire, and while it is always tragic, it was necessary to take the bad guys out. And we certainly didn't kill anywhere near 3000. Should we have just held back and waited until they killed another few thousand of our civilians? Or should we have sent cops to afghanistan with arrest warrants? I'd say we're doing a damn good job avoiding civilian deaths. If this had happened 50 years ago then the whole coutry would have just been carpet bombed to shit. But back then you didn't have CNN to show you graphic pictures of the dead bodies and crying loved ones.

People die in war. War should be avoided. We didn't start it but we're gonna end it.

I for one was horrified by the Twin Towers attack, but think it outrageous that the US attacked Afghanistan and killed more innocents than the original terrorists. A definite case of abuse of a powerful position by the US.

When I look at sources like this casualty count that estimate 3000+ civilian casualties, I think I'd at least have to admit your contention -- perhaps I'd say "that may well have killed more innocents than the original terrorists". As with estimated civilan deaths in Iraq (from sanctions), there seems to be a direct relationship between estimates and political agenda.

In this case, I'm going to guess that the Pentagon's accounting is low, while we continue to tout the amazing accuracy of JDAMs and such. Some of these things *are* certainly amazingly accurate, but that is not much help if they are precisely aimed at the wrong target. Plus, don't we remember the "amazing accuracy" of the Patriot missiles in 1991 and what bullshit that turned out to be?

Given the circumstances in late 2001, though, what I don't know is what alternative path I might have taken vis-a-vis Al Quaeda and Taleban had they given the keys to the White house to a more qualified individual (me.) I mean, WWJD? (What Would Jed Do??) It was the most depressing circumstance....a huge tragedy with the official national/military response in the hands of folks I don't consider trustworthy, with no real coherent alternative in play.

It's not getting better. I saw a cartoon last week with a picture of Democrats depicted as a haggard canine entitled "The Dog That Didn't Bark". My sentiments, exactly. With a few notable exceptions such as my Iraq-traveling congressman (McDermott) there seems to be little dissention from the Cheney Plan. All we need is the Iraqui version of the Gulf of Tonkin Incident and we're on our way (for, indeed, it seems that most folks don't remember the GoTI anymore or that it was a fabrication).

The media? One aspect of my discomfort over the past year is that it seems the major outlets' biggest interest is not in developing an independent analysis but in finding a way to "brand" the story -- Attack on America and all that. I have already seen signs of this on CNN at least -- the graphics folks are quite busy getting ready for Iraq.

For those that don't know, Gulf of Tonkin.

Rrrr! Oh my god this is pissing me off.

As I am proud to be an American - I am just as ashamed to be. I am really really annoyed when people bitch at other Americans (and myself) on this board, and in general, for actions our government is taking or has taken, and make it look like we ourselves are to blame. For one, many Americans dont agree with what our government is doing, but simply because we are Americans, it makes us bad or something. I take it personally. I'm not defending the actions of my government!! I don't think that many of the things we did was right. Makes me want to move to Canada or somewhere, or go practice my German.

I forget who said it, but I agree with the comment that the US just needs to leave the world alone. I hate McDonalds, Disney, and CNN, and although I don't like to see them barging into places they are not necessarily "welcome", I could really care less what they do.

I'm not going into the gun control side of the debate right now... I'm a stupid american and I might get so mad right now that I'm going to go drive around and get road rage then I'm going to reach in my glove compartment and go shoot the ass that didn't use his turn signal.

Oh, I'm sorry, I forgot the [/sarcasm] tag in the last paragraph there. I guess I don't fit the "perceived" world view of being an "average" fat, stupid american.

You elected them.

I did NOT elect the current one. I voted for Bill 'n Opus.

World transmission of the CNN channel also does the US no favours at all!

CNN, McDonald's, Disneyland, etc. springing up around the world has nothing to do with the US government.

Small missage of point here, I think: the original poster wasn't adding CNN to the list of cultural imperialism charges laid at the US, he was saying that showing the rest of the world what US news reporting looks like reinforces everyone's stereotype of US parochiality.

Peter

No, we didn't. We elected Gore and Lieberman, but GWB's brother decided otherwise.

Ok I calmed down.

I actually agree with most of the viewpoints presented here, and I try to hold more of a world view instead of a US-centralized one when looking at these things. One of the things that I really like about this board is this is a true global community. I get to read, chat, learn from people from all around the world - and I don't even think of country barriers when participating here. I ordered the sled plug from Shonky - and I felt important when I received a package from Queensland, Australia! I plan to purchase a tuner kit from Patrick, and I am grateful to everyone on this board for contributing so much.

Granted - I have been annoyed with various things since 9/11 - and I'm not pissed at anyone specific here, just the general sentiment and situation in the world now is what irritates me. I have a lot to be thankful for, though (my empeg, for one). I feel bad when I see on tv that Israel attacked Palestine again, usually killing innocent victims, and I feel equally as bad when I see that there was another suicide bombing in Israel, killing innocent victims there. It is endless madness. Therefore, walking around town here, I'm not generally concerned that some sniper might be in the woods about to shoot me. Its not a pleasant situation by any means, but compared to situations elsewhere in the world... meh, what are you going to do? There is a greater chance I'll be struck by lightning, or killed in a car accident than be shot by a sniper in the woods. My situation could be worse, and I think about that all the time and I'm thankful for the relative tranquility I have.

And, I can always move to Canada if it gets really bad.

You elected them.

Rrr. This is exactly what I'm talking about.

Why cant English be like other languages! You - in this sense can be both singular and plural. Why cant it be like in German - du and Sie. Or French - tu and vous?


Don't you mean "Your country elected them"?!?